Now, in the new testament a distinction is made between prophesying and speaking with tongues, where also speaking with tongues joined with interpretation of tongues equals prophesying. Which shows us that both are ecstatic utterances by the Spirit, prophesying being an ecstatic utterance in a language the speaker and the hearers understand, and tongues being an ecstatic utterance where the speaker and the hearers do not understand (thus requiring the interpretative gift).
However, 'prophesy' in the old testament appears to be somewhat broader in meaning.
1 Chronicles 25:1 indicates prophesying can be equivalent to 'making music in praise of God on instruments'.
Jeremiah 14:14 indicates that prophesying can take the form of vision and 'divination' (casting a lot). The important thing to note is that Joel said all those who received the promised outpouring of the Spirit would prophesy. And, the interpretative problem you mention is created by the apostle Peter himself: under divine inspiration he identified the speaking in tongues that was occurring as the thing that Joel had said would occur. Or in other words, the apostle himself understood 'they shall prophesy' as being fulfilled by 'and they all began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.'
The old testament indicates there was to be a universally occurring, immediate effect of receiving the Spirit: 'they shall prophesy'. When this came to pass, the recipients 'spake with other tongues'. And furthermore, Peter said 'this is that': 'they began to speak with other tongues'
is 'they shall prophesy' as meant by Joel.
We all agree that 'the new testament interprets and explains the old testament'. In this case,
in regard to receiving the promised outpouring of the Spirit, the new testament interprets 'shall prophesy' as 'speak with other tongues'. And therefore the conclusion is established: the old testament teaches a universal initial evidence of receiving the Spirit, it identifies this evidence as 'they shall prophesy', and the new testament explains this as being fulfilled by speaking in other tongues when a person receives the Spirit.
Every time receiving the Spirit is mentioned, with one exception, we see the recipients speaking in tongues. There is a reason for that from a theological pov (Luke's intention in recording these events). And in the one exception (Paul's) it likewise doesn't actually say he DID receive the Spirit (though we assume he did and for good reasons) and furthermore we know he spoke in tongues a lot according to his own admissions found elsewhere. So then,
the fact the book of Acts does not mention tongues in some particular instances cannot be taken to mean that tongues did not occur, unless we are going to be consistent and say receiving the Spirit did not occur, either.
*
The 3000 were among those who heard the disciples speaking in tongues, and who were wondering what was going on. And the apostle identified for them the fact that what was going on (all these people speaking in tongues) was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy regarding the outpouring of the Spirit. He then proclaimed the resurrected Jesus as Lord and Christ, and they asked what they should do about that. They were told to repent and be baptised in the name of this resurrected and exalted Jesus Christ, and were told if they did that they too, would receive of the poured-out Spirit. They had already been told that the exalted Jesus 'hath poured out this which you both see and hear'. The fact they accepted the apostle's message and were baptised indicates they were anticipating and expecting to experience the same thing they had seen and heard happening with the disciples in the upper room. Why?
Because they saw and heard them all speaking with tongues, were told this is the promised Spirit outpouring, that Jesus was causing it to happen, and they too could have this if they would repent and be baptised in the name of this same Jesus.
Now, where else in all of modern Christendom will you find anything even remotely similar to that?
Threaded Mode
